Given that I mentioned how First Principles can be a priori as a function that should be a 'part' of science, even though it is distinctly outside of the 'empirical' approach on other concerns of science, this is an example of Self-EVIDENT proof based upon each and every person's capacity to witness WITHOUT having to require proving this about the whole world through physics. That is, this argument is self-contained and is enough to actually PROVE certain things about all of reality that concerns not only oneself but nature itself. I just posted this in a response to another person trying to suggest and prove that "All is One" as an origin. I've already written this out as a paper elsewhere in more depth.

The FACT that we are 'alive' assures that we are biased to judge the very system from within the very system we are trying to interpret. Kurt Gödel devised a theorem called, the "Incompleteness Theorem" which indirectly addresses this. It initially addresses a form of Liar's Paradox:

"I always lie."

If the sentence is to be believed, then the meaning of that sentence by one asserting it should either be telling the truth about themselves or not. If they are telling the truth though, then we'd have to believe that even that sentence is a lie because it asserts that (s)he ALWAYS lies. But if (s)he is lying always, this should mean that this sentence is also a lie or false. But if it so, then it is NOT the case that "I always lie" is false since it just confirmed what (s)he is communicating. But this means (s)he told the truth.

So which is it?

Without going into the depths of the actual Incompleteness Theorem, this should be enough to make you intuit that (1) NO SYSTEM OF RATIONAL INSPECTION can completely explain ALL truths AND that (2) NO SYSTEM OF RATIONAL INSPECTION can be used to justify itself. That the sentence above cannot 'prove' the truth of itself without being conflicting infinitely, suggests that we as observers trying to inspect whether we originate from anything BUT a 'something' rather than a nothing is not possible. Thus you cannot actually assume we are ONE because we are biased to only witness that. If you are not alive outside of life, you lack life to DISPROVE whether ONENESS is absolute or not.

But you CAN infer that there is SOMETHING 'true' about ONENESS at a minimum.

You can in life be sure to determine that some "nothingness" exists and that there are an infinite such 'nothings'. All you need to 'know' is that to "know" requires change. If you could 'feel' anything without change, then this contradicts our understanding THAT 'feeling' is something that we experience THROUGH change. So at least any change assures that the LAST EXPERIENCE has STOPPED being. This 'stop' is the same as saying that the prior experience no longer exists....or has a quantifying value of being non-existent or a Nothingness.

But there does not seem to be an END to such possible nothingness. Thus there are an infinite Nothings. AND, since each Nothing is at least equivalent to all other nothings, than an ABSOLUTE NOTHING also is something equivalent in meaning to each of these and is thus 'true' as well.

So we have proven that ABSOLUTE ONENESS must at least coexist with ABSOLUTE NOTHING. NOW ADD that there are an INFINITY of such NOTHINGS. This then proves that we have at least these THREE factors necessarily 'true' about reality:

We also know that if we begin with ABSOLUTE ONENESS, it leads to a contradiction because it implies the logical laws of Identity (1 is 1), exclusivity of value (that it requires being 'T' or 'F' but never BOTH), and the law of non-contradiction (that if Absolute one thing is 'true' it cannot be allowed if anywhere it is defined proves that it lacks being 'true') So, when you BEGIN with absolutely ONE truth, it leads to nothingness and Infinity but BREAKS the rule of it remaining 'consistent'

This means that although 'true' sometimes, Oneness cannot ORIGINATE and be consistent at the same time. This is the same argument in kind to whether a god could be perfectly 'good' by default if it is also the creator of all things in reality....because it suggests that it is necessarily responsible for 'evil' to exist in some way.

So what about INFINITY? If infinity were absolute, then absolutely everything is 'true' everywhere. Of course while apparently troubling, this CAN occur IF we allow for many worlds and places that such realities could exist. So where something is 'false', it MUST be simultaneously 'true' in some other place with respect to the totality of everything. But it too cannot ORIGINATE, if there were something original. So assume that there is NO ORIGIN, perhaps, right? But NOW infinity WOULD be 'lying' about its nature to at least have some place in totality that assures this 'true'. Therefore Infinity is still absolutely 'true' but cannot be the 'origin' but assures there is one.

So we now have Absolute Nothingness. Can this be 'true'?

Yes. Because since its meaning also requires not even "laws" themselves are 'true', its 'lawlessness' permits it to break any 'law' arbitrarily because it is not defined nor confined by laws themselves. So Absolute Nothingness must also both be TRUE (and false, and true and false, and even neither) AND be our ORIGINAL source. That is, it can at least STAND ON ITS OWN. So you can have an origin of ABSOLUTE NOTHING that 'causes' ABSOLUTE EACH (ones) and ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING (infinity, or infinity of infinities, etc).

Conclusion:0, 1, and ∞, ALL 'true' necessarily BUT originate from 0.

0 = 0 and 1 and ∞1 = 100 = 0 or 1 or 2 or 3 or .....00

Notice I traded using the infinity sign with two zeroes? It helps recognize that infinity is made up of nothings. This is HOW I derive things as an initial start to further reasoning.

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

"I always lie" is obvious a lie. I can't follow your wanderings but the statement leaves open "I sometimes lie but also often tell the truth"---you know, like most of us.

I think you are very much confusing rhetoric, context, humor, and hyperbole..... for anything meaningful at all. this is almost always the case of any argument that dips into set theory.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

If we aren't aware of it.......what difference does it make? As in: something is the same as nothing.

Know what I mean?

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:If we aren't aware of it.......what difference does it make? As in: something is the same as nothing.

Know what I mean?

This is just your preference to being pragmatic, which at least I respect for your clear honesty and consistency to this.

But while our lives are really just about being practical, any intelligence is actually an accidental anyways. That is, our biology only accidentally enabled a consciousness that could intellectualize anything because reasoning about what we sense is just an evolutionary advantage that aids us to be FLEXIBLE upon relatively unpredictable environments.

BUT, while impractical, the intellectualizing that does question things logically to the depth some of do is NOT any less 'what matters' than another's preference to remain ignorant. The 'difference' that it makes to question things deep enough as I or anyone does motivates ALL that you and others simply can't live life without now, but take for granted. That is, the seemingly 'trivial' depths invested in by such apparently 'impractical' speculations are what gives us all the technology that the ignorant can and do easily take for granted.

But be sure that if I could be doing something else more pleasing to my emotions than thinking deep, I'd be doing it. Why aren't you preferring to get laid rather than be here yourself? Isn't getting laid more 'practical',say, than wasting time trying to convince others why they should be more simple and practical and resist deep thinking?

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:If we aren't aware of it.......what difference does it make? As in: something is the same as nothing.

Know what I mean?

This is just your preference to being pragmatic, which at least I respect for your clear honesty and consistency to this.

Oh..... the question/statement/recognition/declaration is MUCH DEEPER than your shallow dive on the surface. "If we aren't aware of it".......think about THAT. Not aware: meaning the X has no impact, can't be measured. THEN==>what difference does it make????

You gave no answer............because there isn't one. I can dress it up.........but that would take away your dithering word salad.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:If we aren't aware of it.......what difference does it make? As in: something is the same as nothing.

Know what I mean?

This is just your preference to being pragmatic, which at least I respect for your clear honesty and consistency to this.

Oh..... the question/statement/recognition/declaration is MUCH DEEPER than your shallow dive on the surface. "If we aren't aware of it".......think about THAT. Not aware: meaning the X has no impact, can't be measured. THEN==>what difference does it make????

You gave no answer............because there isn't one. I can dress it up.........but that would take away your dithering word salad.

I WAS just being 'kind' to you. You're not worth it.....practically speaking!!

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Because there is something, nothing can be relative but not absolute. Logic 101.

The fundamental principle Allowance must always have existed. Nothing else need have existed but allowance must have been allowed to exist or nothing would or could ever exist. Within the principle itself resides infinite potential, including the potential for its fullest expression.

“It has occurred to me lately—I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities—that both questions [the origin of consciousness in humans and of life from non-living matter] might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality—that stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create: science-, art-, and technology-making animals. In them the universe begins to know itself.”

- George Wald, (Noble laureate and professor of biology at Harvard University) wrote this in an article entitled “Life and Mind in the Universe” which appeared in the peer-reviewed journal the International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology, symposium 11 (1984): 1-15.

GB_Cobber wrote:Because there is something, nothing can be relative but not absolute. Logic 101.

The fundamental principle Allowance must always have existed. Nothing else need have existed but allowance must have been allowed to exist or nothing would or could ever exist. Within the principle itself resides infinite potential, including the potential for its fullest expression.

The only thing that is impossible is impossible.

To what I bolded, is that just a way of expressing your thoughts/understanding, or do you surmise there's a "who" or "what" that did/does the allowing?

scrmbldggs wrote: To what I bolded, is that just a way of expressing your thoughts/understanding, or do you surmise there's a "who" or "what" that did/does the allowing?

It doesn't matter who or what does the allowing, whatever it may be, it's still going to be subject to allowance. It's existence, its actions, it's choice whether, intelligent or by random probability, all of it only possible given the necessary allowances. First and foremost, before anything else is possible, there must be potential, a possibility. Everything starts with a single idea, and the very first idea in any sequence can only be Yes.

scrmbldggs wrote: To what I bolded, is that just a way of expressing your thoughts/understanding, or do you surmise there's a "who" or "what" that did/does the allowing?

It doesn't matter who or what does the allowing, whatever it may be, it's still going to be subject to allowance. It's existence, its actions, it's choice whether, intelligent or by random probability, all of it only possible given the necessary allowances. First and foremost, before anything else is possible, there must be potential, a possibility. Everything starts with a single idea, and the very first idea in any sequence can only be Yes.

Hmm, to me 'potential' is still (and void of thought or decision), whereas 'allowing' is active (and purposeful)...

scrmbldggs wrote: Hmm, to me 'potential' is still (and void of thought or decision), whereas 'allowing' is active (and purposeful)...

Allowing is passive. It requires no effort to allow something to happen, you simply don't get in the way. You just let it go. Allowance is neutral, which is the default resting or still state.

Dis-allowance is negative or negate-ive - to negate. That takes effort and energy. To take something away or to block a flow requires force, as it does to be positive, to posit, put forward, push, advocate, promote or embellish.

Allowance is like the neutral or zero point of every cyclic wave of reciprocating charge between positive and negative extremes, be it representational of electrical charge, pressure/vacuum or supply/demand, etc. Goldilocks and the three bear even. Too hot, too cold and just right. The happy medium or median. In terms of time we call that the Now moment and we get there through the same principle, Allowance and its subjective representations acceptance and inclusion. Simply letting go.

Real Name: bobbo the existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.Asking: What is the most good for the most people?Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

I always find Bliss in the Absolute (and Absolution in the Bliss, it must be said). To Err is to Hesitate and he/she/gerstumff who Errs is, perforce, Lost. Lost, I say, like a Sausage in a Penis Factory, where the penis mightier than the Swordfishy. Fishy.

Poodle wrote:I always find Bliss in the Absolute (and Absolution in the Bliss, it must be said). To Err is to Hesitate and he/she/gerstumff who Errs is, perforce, Lost. Lost, I say, like a Sausage in a Penis Factory, where the penis mightier than the Swordfishy. Fishy.

Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!

Still havent gone to bed, I see.

PeaceDan

What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

scrmbldggs wrote: Hmm, to me 'potential' is still (and void of thought or decision), whereas 'allowing' is active (and purposeful)...

Allowing is passive. It requires no effort to allow something to happen, you simply don't get in the way. You just let it go. Allowance is neutral, which is the default resting or still state.

Dis-allowance is negative or negate-ive - to negate. That takes effort and energy. To take something away or to block a flow requires force, as it does to be positive, to posit, put forward, push, advocate, promote or embellish.

Allowance is like the neutral or zero point of every cyclic wave of reciprocating charge between positive and negative extremes, be it representational of electrical charge, pressure/vacuum or supply/demand, etc. Goldilocks and the three bear even. Too hot, too cold and just right. The happy medium or median. In terms of time we call that the Now moment and we get there through the same principle, Allowance and its subjective representations acceptance and inclusion. Simply letting go.

You try allowing a fat smelly man to rapeyou and then tell me just how easy it isfor you to let go. It takes great effort forsome people to let go of a broken nail.

Angel wrote: You try allowing a fat smelly man to rapeyou and then tell me just how easy it isfor you to let go. It takes great effort forsome people to let go of a broken nail.

The unique thing about the principle allowance is that it's the only true principle, not a rule. Not allowing is also allowing because not allowing is an action and all actions are subject to allowance in order to be possible, therefore to not allow is to allow not allowing. Even if you want to take it as a rule you cannot contradict the principle. That's why it is the fundamental First principle and only truly unbreakable Law. Iv'e already emphasized this point and I don't know how to make it clearer. Everything and that includes "everything" is subject to allowance, including dis-allowance.

You are allowed to dis-allow under the principle and you're certainly allowed to dis-allowance dis-allowance. Negation of a negation cancels out.Where there is only a choice between Yes and No, No No can only mean yes. I don't mean that you're giving permission when you say No twice. I'm not stating a rule, I'm talking about The principle.

As for letting go. What do you think takes more effort. Holding a heavy object against the force of gravity or a boat against the flow of a river, or releasing it?

I discovered it and have discovered a lot more since by following its implications, which is all I ask anyone here to do. Not to blindly accept what I say or to arbitrarily dismiss me as a fruitcake, as if those are the only two options. That's the very kind of polar thinking that's kept the most obvious ubiquitous natural Law hidden in plain sight for so long.

Angel wrote: You try allowing a fat smelly man to rapeyou and then tell me just how easy it isfor you to let go. It takes great effort forsome people to let go of a broken nail.

The unique thing about the principle allowance is that it's the only true principle, not a rule. Not allowing is also allowing because not allowing is an action and all actions are subject to allowance in order to be possible, therefore to not allow is to allow not allowing. Even if you want to take it as a rule you cannot contradict the principle. That's why it is the fundamental First principle and only truly unbreakable Law. Iv'e already emphasized this point and I don't know how to make it clearer. Everything and that includes "everything" is subject to allowance, including dis-allowance.

You are allowed to dis-allow under the principle and you're certainly allowed to dis-allowance dis-allowance. Negation of a negation cancels out.Where there is only a choice between Yes and No, No No can only mean yes. I don't mean that you're giving permission when you say No twice. I'm not stating a rule, I'm talking about The principle.

As for letting go. What do you think takes more effort. Holding a heavy object against the force of gravity or a boat against the flow of a river, or releasing it?

I getcha now A boat is not the same as an idea though.A boat can kill you right away where as anidea gives you time to escape death .

I discovered it and have discovered a lot more since by following its implications, which is all I ask anyone here to do. Not to blindly accept what I say or to arbitrarily dismiss me as a fruitcake, as if those are the only two options. That's the very kind of polar thinking that's kept the most obvious ubiquitous natural Law hidden in plain sight for so long.

I discovered it and have discovered a lot more since by following its implications, which is all I ask anyone here to do. Not to blindly accept what I say or to arbitrarily dismiss me as a fruitcake, as if those are the only two options. That's the very kind of polar thinking that's kept the most obvious ubiquitous natural Law hidden in plain sight for so long.

... is your own website and that you are an involved person in the Leading Edge International Research Group?

Nope. Never seen that before, nor read the book. It seems OK at a glance but seems to pertain elusively to psychology.

It seems valid enough and there are certainly some pearls of wisdom, such as the sentence "When attitudes and opinions are deliberately programmed within a limited set of rigid guidelines, the activity of the total pattern of experience begins to slow " Well, that began thousands of years ago, and hell are people slow these days!

Seems I'm not the only one to realize the value if this principle, though I'm not sure the authors of that work realize just how valuable, profound and pertinent it is to the sciences, especially quantum mechanics. Thanks for the link.

I see. So you independently discovered the Principle of Allowance and named it so in isolation from the LEIRG (who also coined the term Principle of Allowance) and, after a mere glance ( your word) you have established that their work is valuable, profound and pertinent, especially to quantum mechanics.

Poodle wrote:I see. So you independently discovered the Principle of Allowance and named it so in isolation from the LEIRG (who also coined the term Principle of Allowance) and, after a mere glance ( your word) you have established that their work is valuable, profound and pertinent, especially to quantum mechanics.

I am in awe.

I don't call it the principle of allowance. I call it the principle allowance, because allowance is not of the principle, it is the principle. I also just said the principle is valuable, profound and pertinent to the sciences, etc. not "their work"

Why don't you tell me how I'm supposed to take you seriously when all you do is dig for ammunition and fire erroneous ill intentioned assumptions. Go bother someone else. I'm done.

However, you are supposed to take me seriously because you come here with a few claims which, certainly at a superficial level, appear spurious and all too familiar. Now, if you gave us an example of your principle allowance which can be examined by any reasonably intelligent member of this forum, then I'll watch and listen with avid interest.